Written Description: Pioneering Claims Require More Expansive Written Description

Patent, , , ,

Ariad v. Eli Lilly (08-1248.pdf, Fed. Cir. 2009) (Judge Moore; Concurring opinion by Judge Linn)

Ariad sued Lilly for infringing its patent that claims a method of reducing NF-κB (“en eff kappa be”) activity. The listed inventors of the patent include, inter alia, two Nobel Laureates, and the original assignees include Harvard, MIT, and the Whitehead Institute. A jury found that both Evista and Xigris infringe, and the judge denied Lilly’s JMOL motion on invalidity. The resulting judgment was for $65 million in past damages and an ongoing royalty of 2.3% of sales.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision – finding the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description. The written description requirement is intended to ensure that the inventors “disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based [and] demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” (Quoting Capon). Consequently, the disclosure in the patent document “must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed” and was in “possession” of the invention at the time of filing including “all elements and limitations.” In other words, Ariad “must describe some way of performing the claimed methods.”  The actual level of disclosure depends upon several factors such as the extent of prior art, maturity of the science, and the “predictability of the aspects at issue.”

Here, it was clear that the invention was “extraordinarily creative” in a highly unpredictable field with little prior art available. Ariad’s expert even testified that the invention necessitated the development of a new vocabulary. All these factors indicate that the written description bar will be set high.

Here, Ariad’s description was scant on real examples

The ’516 patent discloses no working or even prophetic examples of methods that reduce NF-κB activity, and no completed syntheses of any of the molecules prophesized to be capable of reducing NF-κB activity.

Without specific examples, Ariad attempted to show that its description was sufficient by bolstering the skill of a PHOSITA. Unfortunately for the Patentee, the Jury found an early effective filing date and much of Ariad’s evidence showed skill in the art after that 1989 date.

Because written description is determined as of the filing date—April 21, 1989 in this case—evidence of what one of ordinary skill in the art knew in 1990 or 1991 cannot provide substantial evidence to the jury that the asserted claims were supported by adequate written description.  

Although important, these small date issues probably made no difference because the description was so lacking and the prior art so sparse.

The state of the art at the time of filing was primitive and uncertain, leaving Ariad with an insufficient supply of prior art knowledge with which to fill the gaping holes in its disclosure.

“We therefore conclude that the jury lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims were supported by adequate written description, and thus hold the asserted claims invalid.”

Caveat Vindicor: In its conclusion, the court noted that this result likely turned on clam construction. If Ariad had agreed to a narrower construction in litigation or narrower claim language during prosecution, then the written description requirement might have been satisfied. Of course, if it had pursued that strategy, infringement would have likely been lost.

Although Judge Linn concurred in the opinion, he wrote separately to remind readers of his belief that the written description requirement should be eliminated and enablement be allowed to do its job.

Notes:

  • Pioneering inventions are less likely to be found obvious or anticipated. However, one problematic result highlighted by this decision is that those pioneer patents are more likely to be trapped by the formalities of the patent system.

In re Kubin: Federal Circuit Expands Obvious-to-Try Jurisprudence

Patent, , ,

In re Kubin (Fed. Cir. 2009), 08-1184.pdf (Opinion by Judge Rader)

In a much anticipated biotech case, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a BPAI obviousness decision and in the process expanded the court’s obvious to try jurisprudence. The Kubin opinion found that the Supreme Court’s KSR decision overturned In re Deuel and its admonition against an “obvious to try” test for obviousness.

To be clear, Kubin does not hold that an invention that was “obvious to try” was necessarily obvious under Section 103(a). Going forward, however, the question in this long-running debate will be “when is an invention that was obvious to try nevertheless nonobvious?” (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Kubin revives the O’Farrell analysis of obvious to try and carves-out two factual situations where obvious-to-try analysis should not apply.

(1) Throwing darts versus a finite number of Identified, predictable known options:

In such circumstances, where a defendant merely throws metaphorical darts at a board filled with combinatorial prior art possibilities, courts should not succumb to hindsight claims of obviousness. The inverse of this proposition is succinctly encapsulated by the Supreme Court’s statement in KSR that where a skilled artisan merely pursues “known options” from a “finite number of identified, predictable solutions,” obviousness under § 103 arises. 550 U.S. at 421.

(2) Exploring new technology versus improving known and predictable technology:

[An] impermissible “obvious to try” situations occurs where ‘what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.’ (Quoting O’Farrell).

Again, KSR affirmed the logical inverse of this statement by stating that § 103 bars patentability unless “the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”

Application: In this case, the court finds that neither of the O’Farrell exceptions apply. The invention is old-school biotech: isolating and sequencing a human gene that encodes for a protein. People do this in high school now, and the application explicitly states that the DNA and Protein sequence may be obtained through “conventional methodologies known to one of skill in the art.” Likewise, the protein in question had already been identified and the prior art suggested that the protein plays an role in human immune response.

KSR moves to Non-Predictable Arts: Biotech has traditionally been thought of as unpredictable. Here, Judge Rader may have dismantled the art-level distinction in holding that KSR applies to the unpredictable arts. The issue rather is if the particular invention in question was predictable.

Therefore this court cannot deem irrelevant the ease and predictability of cloning the gene that codes for that protein. This court cannot, in the face of KSR, cling to formalistic rules for obviousness, customize its legal tests for specific scientific fields in ways that deem entire classes of prior art teachings irrelevant, or discount the significant abilities of artisans of ordinary skill in an advanced area of art.

Affirmed.

Notes:

  • Kevin Noonan provides an important critique of the case – focusing primarily on the court’s mishandling of the factual issues. [Link].
  • I should note here that the PTO is well ahead of the Federal Circuit. MPEP 2141 indicates that being “obvious to try” is a proper rationale to “to support a conclusion of obviousness.” The big book does hint that such an application would only be proper if the “trying” means “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.”
  • This case makes clear that the level of enablement of the prior art is very important to any obviousness conclusion. That result is in contrast to the recent Gleave case that found anticipation absent known utility.

Patents and the Auto Industry Bailout

Design Patent, Patent

In 2005, the PTO held a ceremony to commemorate the issuance of design patent number 500,000. The design patent went out to DaimlerChrysler for the design of the Chrysler Crossfire. Then Commerce Chief Gutierrez and PTO Director Dudas were on hand to note the importance of design patent design patents.

The patent has taken an interesting path – as shown by the assignment records at the PTO. Of course, DaimlerChrysler is gone, and Chrysler now owns the patent. In addition, Chrysler has given-up three separate security interests in the design patent. The first and second priority are apparently held in trust by the Wilmington Trust Company. The third priority is held by the US Department of Treasury based on a January 2009 grant and is apparently related to the company’s receipt of bailout money. [Assignment Data]. D500,000 is not the only patent implicated here – the assignment documents show that the US Treasury holds a security interest in more than 2,400 of Chrysler’s patents or pending applications. [More Assignment Data]

ScreenShot018

One important practice issue is raised: Absent a specific agreement, to what extent must the applicant consult secured creditors during the prosecution of a pending patent application?

Percentage of Patents that were Initially Rejected

Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Patent, Patent Prosecution

This relates to my statements regarding the percentage of applications that receive at least an initial rejection. The graph below shows the percentage of patents issued (2000-2006) that were initially rejected by the PTO broken up into groups of art-units. Thus AU 1630 group actually includes AU 1630 – 1639. Close to 95% of the patents issued through the AU 1630 group during that period were initially rejected before being eventually allowed.

200904031439.jpg

As with the design patent discussion yesterday, the rejection rate above is for applications that eventually issue as patents. For any given application, the effective rejection rate was likely higher because abandoned applications are probably more likely to have been rejected.

This data is now getting a bit old – but it is what it is. This data came from public PAIR before researchers were blocked from accessing it in any substantial way. Since 2006, applicants have complained of increased rejections. My perception that this change is not a shift toward more first office action rejections, but rather a shift toward sustaining more of those rejections in the second and subsequent office actions.

In re Gleave: Reference with Unknown Utility Still Anticipates

Fees, Guest Post, Interference, ITC, Law Firm Practice, Patent, Post Grant Review, Trade Secret,

In re Gleave (Fed. Cir. 2009)

In 2008, the BPAI affirmed the examiner’s rejection of Gleave’s claims as anticipated. The claims focus on an antisense oligodeoxynucleotide designed to bind two different types of insulin-dependent growth factor binding protein (IGFBP). The prior art included a document that listed the genetic sequence of the complementary sense strands but did not identify any utility of the sequence.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the anticipation rejection – basing its decision on the rule that anticipatory prior art does need to be functional, useful, or show actual reduction to practice. Rather, to be anticipatory, the prior art must enable the skilled artisan to make the claimed invention.

In the 1973 Wiggins case, the CCPA ruled that the “mere naming of a compound in a reference, without more, cannot constitute a[n anticipatory] description of the compound.” The Federal Circuit here distinguished Wiggins – noting that in Gleave’s case, the sequence listing was sufficient to allow a skilled artisan to “at once envision each member of this limited class.”

Notes:

Design Patents: Sailing Through the PTO

Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Design Patent, Patent, Patent Prosecution

Over eighty percent of utility patent applications are initially rejected during prosecution. Some areas of technology – such as semiconductors – have a lower rejection rate while others – such as electronic commerce methods – have an even higher rejection rate.

I wanted to compare the result for utility patents with design patents. I pulled up information on 1000 of the most recently issued design patents (all issued in March, 2009) and parsed through the file histories to see how design patent prosecution compares. As the graph below shows, in my sample, only 25.6% of the recently issued patents received an initial rejection during prosecution. To be clear, this 25% rejection rate is for applications that eventually issue as patents. To get an overall picture of design patent rejections, we need to also consider the applications that are abandoned and never issue as patents. Recent PTO statistics show that a bit under 20% of design patent applications are abandoned. Because design patent file histories are kept secret unless a patent issues, we cannot know why any individual case is abandoned – However, the two most likely situations are that the applicant (a) failed to respond to a rejection or (b) failed to pay the issue fee. Even if we assume that 100% of the abandoned cases are initially rejected, that only pushes the initial rejection rate to about 40%.

As the graph below shows, of the 1000 issued design patents in my sample, only 4.1% received a final rejection during prosecution; and only 0.2% cases (2 out of 1000) included a notice of appeal. None of the 1000 cases included an appeal brief.

The design patents in the study had an average pendency of 15.3 months calculated by finding the number of months between the filing date and the issue date. As may be expected, applications that included at least one rejection took considerably longer to issue (21.5 months) as compared to those that were never rejected (13.2 months). (These means are different at 99.9 CI).

Most design patents (58%) in my sample have only one inventor. However, 69% of the inventors are listed as joint inventors. A number of the muliti-inventor patents included trans-national inventorship with inventors originating from two or more separate countries. About 1% of the applications listed at least one inventor from the US & Great Britain. Another 1% listed at least one inventor from both the US and China.

Guest Post: Ten Reasons the Supreme Court Should Take In re Bilski

Patent,

Erika Arner is the co-author of the Bilski petition for certiorari challenging the Federal Circuit’s limits on the patentability of method claims. She handles patent prosecution and litigation at Finnegan Henderson in DC. I asked Ms Arner to write this post.

The Time Has Come – Nearly thirty years have passed since the Supreme Court addressed patentable subject matter.  The “BFD” cases─Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), Parker v. Flook (1978), and Diamond v. Diehr (1981)─represent modern doctrine on the scope of patentable processes under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Yet these cases were handed down before the Internet and personal computer fundamentally changed the way Americans live, work, and innovate.  In their struggle to apply the BFD cases to cutting-edge inventions, the PTO and courts have whittled away at the scope of section 101.  The time has come for the Court to reaffirm that the broad, flexible approach to section 101 set forth in the BFD cases applies with equal force in today’s information age. 

Third Time’s The Charm – The Supreme Court declined its last two opportunities to update its jurisprudence on section 101 and process claims.  In 1999, the Court denied cert. in State Street Bank, which applied the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test to determine when a claim contains a patent-eligible practical application of a fundamental principle.  That same year, the Court declined to review AT&T v. Excel, but indicated that the section 101 issue had garnered at least some interest on the Court.  Justice Stevens filed a statement on the denial of cert. in AT&T v. Excel, noting that “[t]he importance of the question presented” made it appropriate to reiterate that a denial of cert. is not a ruling on the merits. 

Justice Stevens Is Not Alone – In addition to the statement filed in AT&T v. Excel, several justices have found opportunities to express interest in section 101 issues.  When the Court dismissed cert. in LabCorp v. Metabolite, Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens and Souter.  In the dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer called into question the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test for patentable processes, arguing that “if taken literally” the test would conflict with Benson and Flook.  These three justices were joined by Justice Kennedy in a concurrence filed in eBay v. MercExchange(2006), criticizing the “potential vagueness and suspect validity” of business method patents.  Clearly, there is interest among at least some of the justices in the state of section 101. 

The PTO Picked Bilski – When the PTO began examining Mr. Bilski’s patent application, prosecution progressed as usual.  Prior art was searched and applied, claims were amended, new prior art was cited, and several claims were allowed.  Then suddenly, the examiner changed position, withdrawing the remaining prior art rejections and the claim allowances and instead rejecting all of the claims under the now-obsolete “technological arts” test for section 101.  An expanded panel of the PTO Board affirmed the rejection in a 70-page “informative” opinion setting forth a version of the machine-or-transformation test.  The PTO seemingly chose Bilski as the vehicle to reverse its position set forth in the prior year’s “precedential” decision in Ex parte Lundgren, which allowed business method claims with no tie to a computer or physical transformation. 

The Federal Circuit Picked Bilski – At the Federal Circuit, Mr. Bilski’s case progressed normally at first.  Briefs were filed; oral arguments were held.  But before the panel rendered its decision, the court ordered that the appeal would be heard en banc “in a long-overdue effort to resolve primal questions on the metes and bounds of statutory subject matter” according to Judge Mayer.  In its en banc Order, the court invited briefing from the parties and the public on five questions ranging from whether Bilski’s claims were patent-eligible under section 101 to what standard should govern the patent-eligibility of a process.  The court also took the extraordinary step of inviting two representatives of amicus parties to participate in the en banc oral arguments.  Clearly, the court decided that Bilski was the case to resolve the very “primal” question of when a process is patentable under section 101. 

The Patent Community Picked Bilski – When invited to file amicus curiae briefs to the en banc Federal Circuit in In re Bilski, the patent community and the public at large responded in force.  Thirty-eight briefs were filed representing wildly different points of view on the proper interpretation of section 101.  Briefs were filed by large organizations and small, by teams of academics and by individuals, by corporate patent owners and patent practitioners, and by industry groups ranging from software and biotechnology to the ACLU.  These assorted parties with their divergent points of view seem to agree on one thing: In re Bilski presents the perfect vehicle to address the proper scope of section 101. 

The En Banc Bilski Decision Is the Closest We Get to a Patent Circuit Split – Three dissents and a concurrence accompanied the 9-judge majority opinion.  Regarding the majority’s machine-or-transformation test, the dissenting opinions varied just as widely as the amicus briefs had.  Judge Mayer argued that the court should go farther to restrict section 101 and overrule State Street Bank andAT&T.  At the other extreme, Judges Newman and Rader filed separate dissents arguing for a broad, flexible application of section 101 to accommodate the innovations of today’s knowledge economy.  The divergence of opinions on the en banc court is akin to the “circuit split” that often signals the need for the Supreme Court to step in. 

The Issue in Bilski is Fundamental to the Patent System and the U.S. Economy – The proper scope of patentable subject matter under § 101 is not only important to the nation’s economy, it is “one of the broadest, most sweeping issues in patent law,” according to Judge Moore in her dissent from en banc rehearing in In re Comiskey (2009).  The importance of this issue is highlighted by the filing of nine amicus curiae briefs in support of the petition for cert.  This level of amicussupport at the cert. stage is the highest in a patent case since Festo, where nine briefs were filed at the cert. stage.  For example, only three briefs were filed in support of the petition for cert. in KSR and six were filed at the cert. stage in eBay.   

The Machine-or-Transformation Test Conflicts with Supreme Court Precedent – Although the Supreme Court has twice expressly declined to hold that the machine-or-transformation test is the “only test” for patentable processes under § 101, the Bilski court did just that.  Indeed, the court acknowledged some doubt about its interpretation of Supreme Court precedent and recognized that the Supreme Court “may ultimately decide to alter or perhaps even set aside this test to accommodate emerging technologies.”  In re Bilski. 

The Supreme Court Does Not Like Rigid Tests for Patents – When the Supreme Court has set forth a flexible approach to interpreting the Patent Act, they are prone to overruling attempts to define a rigid “bright line” test.  Festo and KSR are two examples of the high Court reversing an attempt by the Federal Circuit to establish a bright line test when the flexible approach of earlier Supreme Court cases was difficult to apply.  In those cases, the Court instructed the Federal Circuit to return to the flexible, case-by-case analysis required by its precedent.  The Federal Circuit’s “definitive” machine-or-transformation test should meet the same fate.

Bits and Bytes No. 101: Patent Bill & the Patent Lobby

Patent, , , ,
  • Reform: Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee met shortly and announced that an agreement is “close” on all of the controversial issues and that the compromise will result in a major overhaul of S. 515. Gene Quinn has instant-comments. Potential changes include: (1) codifying the existing law of damages rather than changing it – except that a judicial check on jury-awarded damages would be added; (2) eliminate “best mode” as a ground for invalidating a patent; (3) lowering the standard for post grant review to an “interesting question” rather than a “substantial new question of patentability.” We should see some language this week.
  • Reform: A reader sent me the following points on the potential agreed-to compromise Bill in the Senate:
    • Damages. The amendment will strike the contentious calculation of reasonable royalty damages provision and will replace it with the gatekeeper language developed by Senators Feinstein and Specter, which will provide more of a role for the judge to identify the appropriate legal standards and relevant factual contentions for the jury.
    • Inter partes reexamination. The amendment will strike the controversial “in public use or on sale” additions on inter partes reexamination.
    • Best mode. The amendment will retain the requirement that a specification contain the best mode of carrying out the invention as part of the patent application, but not allow best mode to be used as means to invalidate a patent.
    • Interlocutory appeals. The amendment will tighten the interlocutory appeals provision. The bill as introduced would have given the district court complete discretion whether to approve an application for interlocutory appeal of a claims construction hearing. This amendment will provide district court with specific standards that it must certify have been met.
    • Willfulness. The amendment tightens the willfulness provision to ensure is in line with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Seagate.
    • Venue. The amendment will strike the current subsection on venue, and replace it with a codification of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in TS Tech.
  • Lobby Lobby: The IPO reports that “by early afternoon yesterday, 16 paid ‘line sitters’ were already in line in the corridor outside the [committee] room, holding places for lobbyists to be admitted to the room this morning.”
  • Patent Jobs: The Patently-O Job board has picked-up some steam over the past week. Here are some recent job postings.

Innovation in the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law

Patent

This week, I am taking part in a “blog symposium” hosted by Prof. Josh Wright (U. Texas Law) on his blog (Truth on the Market).  The symposium focuses on a new book by Prof. Michael Carrier titled Innovation in the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law (Oxford 2009).  In the book, Carrier identifies a number of problems with the antitrust and IP laws – and then proposes solutions.  Carrier’s book moves in the same vein as other recent law professor books critiquing IP Policy such as the Meurer and Bessen book Patent Failure.  Here, however, Carrier spends less time proving that a problem exists and somewhat more time identifying solutions. 

Early posts include:

·         Reverse Payment Settlements: Carrier suggests that reverse payments patent settlements should be made presumptively illegal or even per se illegal.  These payments have become somewhat common where a patent holder will pay a generic to stay off the market and not further challenge the patent rights. Prof. Dan Crane (Cardozo) argues that rule does not make sense because there is no direct link between the direction of the settlement payment and the potential anticompetitive social harm of the settlement.  [LINK]

·         Patents Blocking Antitrust Action: Carrier suggests that the existence of IP rights should not grant a company a free-pass to take otherwise anticompetitive actions.  In his post, Prof. Phil Weiser (Colorado) agrees “IPRs should not displace antitrust oversight.”  Weiser argues that this is especially true in the area of software patents: “Given that software patents are controversial to begin with, awarding the recipient of a patent on an application programming interface or communications protocol a get-out-jail free card is hard to justify.” [LINK]

·         Mergers in the Innovation Market: Carrier suggests stronger antitrust regulation of mergers in the “innovation market” – as opposed to more traditional merger analysis that focuses only on product lines.  In his post, Geoff Manne (LECG) points to the biggest hole in Carrier’s book – that he chooses sides without enough evidence either way.  In this case, Manne notes that “we don’t know about the relationship between market structure and effect, and error costs are high.” From Manne’s perspective, innovation markets are so dynamic that Government antitrust intervention will necessarily arrive at the wrong answer too late and do harm. [LINK]

·         Standard Setting and Patent Holdups: Carrier identifies the “patent holdup” situation as having a particularly troublesome antitrust concern because it looks like attempted monopolization – especially where the patent holder pushes an SSO to adopt a standard that would infringe.  Wright argues that such antitrust liability would be quite problematic. [LINK]

 

No Stay of District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal of Preliminary Injunction

Injunctions, License, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Transnational

Fairchild Semiconductor v. Third Dimension (3D) Semiconductor 200903292047.jpg (Fed. Cir. 2009) (nonprecedential order)

Fairchild originally licensed 3D's US and Chinese patents – agreeing to a royalty for all Fairchild products "covered by" a 3D patent. However, after analyzing the patents, Fairchild decided that it need not pay any royalties and then sued for a declaratory judgment that it owed no royalties and that none of its products are covered by 3D's patents.

Restraining License Termination: In a preliminary ruling, the district court granted Fairchild's request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting 3D from terminating the license agreement. The ongoing license serves as a defense to charges of patent infringement by 3D. As the district court held, "termination of the agreement does create irreparable harm in depriving Fairchild of its primary defense to 3D patent infringement litigation.

The threat of such litigation is not speculative: 3D has already filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and has promised to file an infringement case in China based on the Chinese patents otherwise licensed by the Agreement. Without the Agreement as an affirmative defense to those suits, Fairchild could be forced to endure years of litigation in those other forums despite this Court eventually ruling that Fairchild did not breach the Agreement.

The preliminary injunction is now on appeal to the Federal Circuit. In a recent order, the appellate panel rejected 3D's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending outcome of the appeal. 3D argued that the appeal divested the district court with jurisdiction over the matter. That argument was regarded "without merit."

A preliminary injunction, i.e., an injunction pendente lite, is an injunction issued pending the ongoing litigation. Although a district court may not proceed with matters involved with the injunction itself, e.g., it may not amend the injunction, or make findings to support its injunction while the injunction is on appeal, the district court may proceed with the litigation and permit discovery, enter rulings on summary judgment, or hold a trial on the merits. (internal citations omitted)

Briefing in the appeal will begin in April.

Notes & Docs:

Tuesdays with Aaron

Bits and Bytes, Blogroll, Patent, Patent Prosecution

12:01 am on Tuesday morning is a special time for patent attorneys. That is when the USPTO releases the newest batch of issued patents. Usually, over 3,000 issue each week.

Patent Attorney Aaron Feigelson (Leydig Voit firm) has started a great new blog: 1201tuesday.com covering PTO events. Aaron writes with an eye toward patent prosecution and does a good job of finding examples from recently issued patents that raise important practice issues. He has also been closely following the aftermath of Bilski. Aaron describes his project as follows:

I started regular weekly monitoring of issued patents a few years ago for some particular client-related matters, but my intrigue grew after stumbling upon certain patents, unrelated to client matters, with stories that were too interesting to keep to myself. Like U.S. Patent No. 6,097,812 and its 67-year prosecution history (thanks to a very long lasting secrecy order). Or U.S. Patent No. 7,472,070 for a seemingly innocuous grain aeration system — but granted to Microsoft, that well-known player in agricultural technology. Or trends, like the trickling-off of issuances to applications filed the first week of June 1995 (when there was a pre-GATT filing surge). Or Jerome Lemelson being granted U.S. Patent No. 7,343,660 more than a decade after his death, with priority going back over fifty years to 1954.

Lately, my attention has turned to the fallout from the Federal Circuit’s recent decision of In re Bilski and its effect on patentable subject matter under Section 101. In particular, I was curious (to aid my own practice) to see what sorts of claims had been allowed pre- and post-Bilski, and what techniques applicants had used to address or circumvent the machine-or-transformation test. I began sending my weekly findings internally to a few attorneys in my firm. Then to a few more. Then to a few more..

After a few months of these “Bilski Watch” emails, this blog was created.

I enjoyed Aaron’s recent post regarding patents issuing from applications filed in early June 1995 – just before the patent term reference was switched from the issue date to the filing date.

Notes

  • For those of you who don’t know, the IP blogging community is rather inter-connected. For instance, Aaron Feigelson was a 2L at UChicago Law when I started there as a 1L. He was also a summer clerk at the MBHB firm. I started at MBHB soon after Aaron left and actually took over his desk and sat next door to his classmate Aaron Barkoff of the Orange Book Blog. Also at the MBHB firm are the PhD’s who blog at Patent Docs (both Aarons hold PhD’s as well). I interviewed at Matt Buchanan’s (Promote The Progress) former Chicago firm, which is just across the Chicago River from Feigelson’s office. Matt has participated in several business ventures with Steve Nipper (Invent Blog) and Doug Sorocco (PHOSITA). Matt and I are also working on a project for this fall. My old firm also paid for my patent bar review course with PLI partially taught by Gene Quinn (IPWatchdog). I could continue…

Best Practices for Trade Secret Protection

Articles and Publications, Patent, Trade Secret

I recently attended a conference of senior corporate patent counsel. Much of the discussion focused on cost savings in a tight economy. In patent prosecution, this process has been going on for years by limiting prosecution fees and filing abroad only on important cases. Part of the discussion focused on short-term mechanisms to push off cost – such as using provisional and timing PCT applications.

New Focus on Trade Secrets: One alternative suggested is increased reliance on trade secret. Trade secrets are relatively much cheaper than patents. Trade secret protection is automatic so long as sufficient steps are taken to keep the secret and the secret is economically valuable. Patent filings are dropping and many companies are taking a harder look at trade secret law as a mechanism to at least temporarily protect rights.

The public benefit of public disclosure is often touted when comparing patents with trade secrets. Patents require public disclosure with the aim of promoting the flow of ideas and information. Trade secret laws prohibit disclosure.

The private benefit of private disclosure: Anyone who has practiced trade secret law intuitively knows that patents naturally create additional information benefits that I call “private disclosure.” I note two of these benefits below: The benefit of defining rights

Value of Defining Rights: Despite serious problems with claim scope unpredictability, patents do a good job of explicitly stating the rights being claimed. Defined rights can be sold, traded, and accounted-for both externally and within the company. And, patent law facilitates a process for looking at by-product innovations to consider whether they should be pursued. These benefits flow from Coase’s work on property rights. Although trade secrets can also be well defined, trade secret law does not require explicit pre-identification nor does it provide such a mechanism. Rather, in most cases, a company’s knowledge about its own trade secret information is left nebulous and largely undefined.

Employee Relations: The patent system also creates a nice mechanism for managing employee relations. Inventors typically have a duty to assign all their work-related inventions to their employer. However, that duty is crystalized when the inventor files an oath and an assignment of rights. Often, the inventor gets a cash bonus at that point as well. Although the inventor already had a duty to assign, the actual assignment is important psychologically – to ensure that all the parties agree who owns what. Typical trade secret practice does not involve any explicit acknowledgment of the trade secret nature of particular innovations and information. Some companies attempt an end-of-employment statement that This is important because most trade-secret practice involves former employees using inside knowledge to benefit a competitor.

Best Practices for Trade Secret Law: Most companies have invention disclosure programs, but few of them link those disclosures to trade secret practice. Notably, when a company decides not to pursue patent protection, a process of assignment (and possible small bonus) should still be followed to ensure that the creator understands that the innovation belongs to the company and is not being given to the public. Likewise, companies may consider implementing broader innovation identification programs that encompass both patentable inventions and trade secret information.

Notes:

  • One query: In the US, trade secret law is state specific – although most jurisdictions follow the Uniform Trade Secret Act. Do any jurisdictions have a “working” requirement for trade secret? Take the situation where a company employee creates a new product, but the company decides not to pursue the product and it just sits in the file cabinet?
  • China: In the US, the commercialization of trade secrets will block the user from later obtaining a patent on the otherwise secret information. A Foley & Lardner report by Sharon Barner and Hal Wegner indicates that under Chinese law, there commercialized trade secrets may still be patented. Is this true in other FTF countries?

Independent Inventors: Five Ways to Reduce the Cost of Patenting and Get a Better Patent Application

Guest Post, Inventors, Patent, Patent Prosecution, TipCast

Patent Attorney Mark Bergner provided the following five points that may help independent inventors control the cost of their patent application.   

Many small inventors contact me for preparing a patent application and asking that costs be kept to an absolute minimum. Recognizing that most such inventors do not have a great deal of money, I usually offer the following advice:

1) Provide me with the best write-up that you can up front with some illustrative (even hand-sketched) diagrams, along with any design documents you may have.

Often, inventors will provide a one-page summary or a sales brochure of their invention that leaves out a significant amount of detail. It is going to drive up costs if I have to drag each and every relevant aspect of the invention out. Additionally, there may be ample design documents that are provided to me after a significant amount of work has already been done. It will take much more effort for me to integrate this newly added information with a nearly complete draft specification than it would have taken if all information had been provided up front.

2) Try to do as much of the work as you can yourself.

I tell clients that I am knowledgeable in patent prosecution, but generally not knowledgeable about the subject matter of the invention. It will cost considerably more if I am required to do extensive research in the field of the invention in order to fill in a sparse invention disclosure. I will often point inventors to a patent in their general field and suggest that the detailed description and figures shown in the patent provide roughly the level of detail needed for their patent application. While I am not expecting draftsman-quality drawings and use of the words “wherein” and “said” in their description, I am expecting something more than a 3-block single figure illustrating a complex client-server architecture.

Also, there are many inventors who are wonderful technical people, but simply cannot communicate well in writing (that’s why they majored in physics and not journalism). It might be a good idea for such an inventor to work with someone (under a confidentiality agreement) who can write well to prepare an initial description. I had an inventor who enlisted the support of a graduate student at a significantly lower hourly rate than I charge. Although I can get all of the relevant information by talking with the inventor in person and over the telephone, if that is the sole means that I have of obtaining descriptive information, it is going to cost more. If the inventor has difficulty in communicating ideas and concepts both in writing and orally, it is going to be a very expensive patent application–no two ways about it.

3) Provide me with a nearly completed concept of the invention.

Nothing drives up costs more than to have the inventor continue to invent as the application is being drafted. One common issue: if a patent attorney does a good job with the subject matter, the draft of the patent application may be the first time the inventor has ever seen his idea expressed in such a clear and organized manner. This may spawn the inventor to come up with alternate embodiments or to provide other features that might prevent a design-around. While I generally expect some minor refinement of an inventive concept during the course of preparing the application, the addition of completely new or different embodiments will substantially increase costs.

4) Answer any questions provided in a draft clearly and completely.

Often I will prepare a draft application with a number of questions or comments, requesting clarification or additional detail. Some questions are intended to solicit lengthy responses, but only a bare minimum is provided or, worse, the information provided is completely non-responsive. Example: “You indicated that a series of messages flow between the client and server in order to implement the invention, but you have not provided any description as to what these messages are or what they contain. Can you please provide me with a detailed description of these, possibly with a table or diagram?” The entire reply received back: “The messages contain information that allows the server to act on client requests.” Very often I have an inventor who promises to do most of the work themselves, only to put forth a minimal effort when asked to provide additional information.

5) The costs of obtaining a patent, even a relatively complex one, pale in comparison to the costs you will encounter in trying to commercialize your product.

I know I’m in trouble with an inventor if I throw out a fair cost estimate for preparing an application and the inventor breaks out in a cold sweat and starts suggesting a cost that is 50% of the estimate. It’s one thing for an experienced business professional to haggle for lower costs, but in most situations involving the individual inventor, there is a significant lack of appreciation for what it will cost to do prototyping or pilot production runs, legal costs associated with non-disclosure agreements, trademarks, production and supply agreements, Underwriters Laboratories certification, FDA approval, etc. In the vast majority of cases, it is very expensive to bring an inventive idea to the marketplace, and the patent costs are typically a minimal part of those costs. If the inventor is not prepared for the entire undertaking, he is probably not going to willingly and cheerfully pay the bills, regardless of the quality and efficiency of the work done.

Dear Patently-O: How Do You React to the Following Letter

Bits and Bytes, Inventors, Law Firm Practice, Patent

Dear Mr. Crouch:

I am a solo physician and inventor. I am wondering if you can point me in the generally right direction to resolve this issue.

I went to a large, well-respected, nationally-known firm to file a patent application for an invention. The invention is not that complicated. It’s mechanical rather than electrical or chemical; in fact, I can make prototypes in my kitchen fairly quickly. The invention mostly relies on a new combination of existing devices/technology.

My attorney knew from the start that I am a solo inventor and under a tight budget. The final fees were astronomical. I paid them at the time because the lawyer had obviously worked hard and I had agreed to pay the hourly rate she had quoted. However, I recently discovered that the application is much, much longer than patents of similar complexity, and the fees I paid are much higher than for similar patents.

To give you a comparison, based on a word count, my patent application was literally twice as long as Dean Kamen’s patent for an early Segway device in 1994. My fees were three times as high as another firm (Cooley Godward) says to expect for fees for most routine patents (other than for complex patents such as biologics, pharmaceuticals, etc.).

My current plan is to go back to this attorney and have a frank discussion with her, and to ask for a partial refund. If she refuses, I plan to go to the state bar and file a complaint.

Is this the right way to go about this? Are there any precedents for recovering fees in this sort of situation in a way that won’t tie me up in further legal fees?

Many thanks,

____ ____ M.D. (anonymized at the author’s request)

Book Review: Patent Interferences as High Drama!

Book Review, Guest Post, Patent

By Charles L. Gholz

Patent interferences are intellectually stimulating and often a lot of fun–at least for the attorneys involved. However, I've seldom thought of them as "capable of producing a hell of a good story," which is the author's assessment of the story he tells in Taylor, LASER: The Inventor, The Nobel Laureate, and The Thirty-Year Patent War. Of course, the laser was unquestionably one of the great inventions of the Twentieth Century, and the fact that the issue of who invented it (Prof. Charles Townes or his grad student, Gordon Gould) provided gainful employment for patent attorneys for thirty years certainly commends this book to the readership of this publication.

Actually, "gainful employment for patent attorneys" better describes the situation of those who supported Prof. Townes's claims than the situation of those who supported Mr. Gould's claims. (Tellingly, Gordon Gould never did get his doctorate.) However, the fact that those who worked for Mr. Gould "on the cuff" for many years were ultimately amply rewarded makes it a heart-warming story for most of us.

Moreover, the professor/grad student controversy is a familiar one–and one that is usually difficult for even the best intentioned objective observers (including members of the interference bar) to sort out. Just as "mistakes were made" during the Reagan administration, an "invention was made" while Gordon Gould was working for Prof. Townes. But who made it? According to this book (and according to the final judicial determination), Gordon Gould made at least part of the overall invention of the laser—a part which was essential to the commercialization of lasers. However, I've been involved in enough of these disputes to suspect both that the final judicial determination could have gone the other way and that, if that had happened, an equally plausible (and interesting) book could have been written about Prof. Townes.

What made this book particularly entertaining for me was the fact that many of the principal players in the drama (judges, Patent Office officials, and lawyers) are still alive or have been within recent memory. It's always fun to read about folks you know and to realize that they were involved in a truly historic controversy.

In addition, the parts of the story concerning Gordon Gould as a prickly, overly suspicious "basement inventor" rang true for me. Most of us have dealt with some of those in our time at the bar, and it's never easy.

On the negative side, however, I should warn prospective readers that the manuscript was apparently not read by a patent lawyer—let alone by an interference specialist. It is replete with legal howlers! However, if one reads it with the proper attitude, noting those howlers is part of the fun.

Federal Circuit Awards Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal

Attorney Fees, CAFC, Patent, Patent Cases 2009, Software

E-Pass v. 3Com, Palm, Visa, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2009)

This litigation began in 2000 when E-Pass sued for infringement of its electronic credit card patent. Patent No. 5,276,311. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal. The district court then found the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded attorneys’ fees to the defendants. E-Pass appealed that judgment. In a counter-motion, PalmSource also asked for attorneys fees for the appeal – arguing that the appeal was frivolous as well. The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court without opinion, but wrote an extensive opinion finding a frivolous appeal.

Frivolous Appeal: An appeal is frivolous if the appellant fails “to present cogent or clear arguments for reversal.” In addition, the court may award sanctions based on misconduct or misrepresentations to the appellate court.

Here, the court found that E-Pass did not present any specific argument relating to the attorney fees for one of the defendants – PalmSource. Instead, the plaintiff-appellant focused on its case against the other defendants. E-Pass did not “challenge any finding of the district court relating to litigation misconduct in the case against PalmSource.” Furthermore, E-Pass did not change its strategy even after being notified of PalmSource’s frivolous appeal argument. Adding to E-Pass’s problems are “multiple misrepresentations” to the Federal Circuit – primarily in referring to the defendants collectively when each stood in different situations. Perhaps the straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back was E-Pass’s use of the quote that “a trial court may only sanction the patentee if both the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith and the litigation is objectively baseless.” With the help of PalmSource and the CAFC clerks, the court easily found that a critical exception to the sanctions rule had been left off. Notably, the full quote reads: “Absent misconduct in the litigation or in securing the patent, a trial court may only sanction the patentee if both the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith and the litigation is objectively baseless.”

Sanctions and attorney fees granted against E-Past and its counsel, jointly and severally.

In dissent, Judge Bryson saw serious misconduct, but would not have imposed sanctions.

Accepting that in those regards E-Pass’s briefs on appeal fell short of the standards we expect of counsel in this court, I nonetheless conclude that the shortfall is not so egregious as to call for the imposition of sanctions.

Inequitable Conduct Based on Failure to Submit Rejection in Co-Pending Case

Inequitable Conduct, Patent, Patent Cases 2009

Larson Mfg. Co. v. Aluminart Products Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2009)pic-15.jpg

In an earlier post, I discussed the concurring opinion in this case where Judge Linn argued for a restatement of the law of inequitable conduct that makes it more difficult to allege inequitable conduct absent evidence of fraud. This post covers the majority opinion.

Larson sued Aluminart for infringement of two claims of its patent covering a storm door with a moving glass panel. Without reaching the merits of the infringement argument, the district court found the patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. The district court found that the patentee had improperly withheld documents from the examiners during reexamination of the patent. (The reexamination had been requested by Aluminart). The Federal Circuit provided the following description of the lower court holding:

The [district] court found that Larson failed to disclose to the Reexamination Panel three items of prior art and two office actions issued in the prosecution of a continuation application that grew out of the application that resulted in the ’998 patent [the patent being reexamined]. The court rejected Larson’s argument that the three items of prior art were cumulative of prior art which already was before the Reexamination Panel and therefore were not material, as well as its argument that the office actions were not material because all of the critical references noted in them already had been disclosed to the Reexamination Panel. After finding that Larson intended to deceive the Reexamination Panel, the court balanced its findings of materiality and intent and found inequitable conduct.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the holding and remanded for a potential new trial on inequitable conduct.

The inequitable conduct charges stem from the PTO's parallel examination of both the reexam of the patent in suit and a continuation application. During the reexam, Larson's patent attorney submitted hundreds of references, district court proceedings, and disclosed the co-pending continuation. However, the patent attorney did not cross-cite two office action rejections from the continuation or one of the prior art references from the continuation (although every other reference from the continuation was cited). In addition, the attorney did not cite two marketing configuration sheets that were later uncovered during discovery.

Law of Inequitable Conduct: Inequitable Conduct requires clear and convincing evidence of at least a threshold level of evidence that the applicant both (1) "made an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact, failed to disclose material information, or submitted false material information" and (2) by that act "intended to deceive the PTO." The materiality of the action is determined based on a reasonable examiner standard – what would a reasonable examiner "consider important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue as a patent?" If an unsubmitted reference is cumulative to information already on hand, then it will not be seen as material. Proof of intent to withhold a reference is not sufficient. Rather, the evidence must show intent to deceive the PTO. That said, intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence. After finding both threshold materiality and intent, the court must determine if the proof is sufficient to find inequitable conduct and consequently hold the patent unenforceable.

What is Cumulative?: After reviewing the submitted and unsubmitted prior art references in detail, the Federal Circuit found that the lower court had clearly erred in finding the art non-cumulative. Notably, the only features found in the non-submitted art that were not in the submitted art were "irrelevant to the claim limitations at issue and therefore could not support a finding of materiality and non-cumulativeness." Although the unsubmitted prior art included a different embodiment than the submitted reference, that difference was not important because the claims were broadly drafted in a way that cover both embodiments.

Disclosure of Office Actions in Related Cases: The examiner of the co-pending continuation filed four office action rejections. The first was used as the basis for the reexamination request. The second was used as a basis for an initial rejection in the reexamination. However, the patentee did not submit the third or fourth office action for consideration. The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that the office actions should have been submitted because the rejections contained "adverse decisions about substantially similar claims" that were "not cumulative" to materials already submitted to the examiner.

Because the Third and Fourth Office Actions contained another examiner’s adverse decisions about substantially similar claims, and because the Third and Fourth Office Actions are not cumulative to the First and Second Office Actions, the district court correctly found the withheld Office Actions material.

In its analysis, the Federal Circuit reviewed Dayco Products where it found the patentee had wrongly withheld rejections from co-pending applications.

In Dayco Products, the patentee failed to disclose rejections in a copending application of claims “that were substantially similar in content and scope to claims pending in the applications that issued as the patents-in-suit.” 329 F.3d at 1367. We held “that a contrary decision of another examiner reviewing a substantially similar claim” was material. Id. at 1368. We further explained that, because a “rejection of a substantially similar claim refutes, or is inconsistent with the position that those claims are patentable, [the] adverse decision by another examiner . . . meets the materiality standard.” Id.   

Thus, on remand, the district court must determine whether the patentee failure to submit the two office actions was done with sufficient intent to deceive the PTO. Although seemingly dicta, the Federal Circuit provided four points of explicit guidance to the lower court. First, the district court need not accept any additional evidence; Second, the court should remember that "material does not presume intent, and nondisclosure, by itself, cannot satisfy the deceptive intent element." Rather, if intent is inferred, it must be "the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence." Further, intent cannot be inferred based on a decision to withhold if the patentee has plausible legitimate reasons for withholding. Third, good faith on behalf of the applicant must be considered as it "militates against a finding of deceptive intent." One element of good faith here, may be that the patentee notified the examiners of the co-pending application. Finally, although the Federal Circuit agreed that the office actions were material, the court did not opine on how material. Thus, if the lower court does find clear and convincing evidence of a threshold intent to deceive, the court must again determine whether the combined intent and materiality are sufficient to warrant a holding of inequitable conduct.

Notes:

  • This case is rather silly because the defendant Aluminart was closely following the reexamination. I can almost guarantee that Aluminart realized that the documents had not been submitted even before the reexamination certificate was issued. Certainly, the company could have brought the omission Larson's attention if it truly was material.

Gholz: Linking Post-Grant Review with Interference Procedure

Guest Post, Interference, Patent, Patent Legislation, Post Grant Review, ,

Guest Post by Charles ("Chico") Gholz. Gholz is the head of the Interference Section at Oblon Spivak, a former chair of the Interference Committee of the AIPLA, and a frequent author on interference law and practice. I asked him to provide some thoughts on the proposed post-grant review proposals in the Patent Reform Act of 2009, telling him that I was especially interested in whether we should try to use the interference procedural structure for the new post-grant challenges.

It is my understanding that "the PTO" (actually, the PTO officials directly involved in administering interference matters—by which I mean Chief Administrative Patent Judge Fleming, Vice-Chief Administrative Patent Judge Moore, and Senior Administrative Patent Judge McKelvey) have expected the cancellation proceedings to be a species of the genus contested case and that, accordingly, they would be governed by Part 41, "Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences," Subpart D, "Contested Cases," of 37 CFR. To those of us in the interference bar, that makes perfect sense, since the cancellation proceedings will be very, very similar to the first phase (formerly known as the "preliminary motions phase") of patent interferences—except that only one party will be filing substantive motions.

However, proposed 35 USC 326 in both bills provides that "The Director shall prescribe regulations…" governing the post-grant review proceedings (what I'm referring to herein as "cancellation proceedings"). Apparently the drafters of the bills (who I suspect are not members of the patent bar, let alone members of the interference bar!) either were unaware of 37 CFR 41 Subpart D or felt that either additional or different rules would be required for the cancellation proceedings.

Whether the cancellation proceedings are to be governed by Subpart D or by a different set of rules is not an insignificant point. Proposed 35 USC 326(a)(3) in both bills would require the Director to prescribe regulations "setting forth procedures for discovery of relevant evidence, including that such discovery shall be limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by either party in the proceedings, and [that] the procedures for obtaining such evidence shall be consistent with the purpose and nature of the proceeding." However, while that language could be read as mandating real discovery (i.e., discovery similar to the discovery available in district courts), the bills then go on to mandate that, "In carrying out paragraph (3) [i.e., in providing the rules for discovery], the Director shall bear in mind that discovery must be in the interests of justice," which might be read a giving the PTO room to provide for only the extremely limited kind of discovery that is currently available in interferences. See Gholz, Patent Interferences – Big Ticket Litigation With No Effective Discovery, 4 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 10 (1997).

Similarly, proposed 35 USC 326(b) in both bills would provide that "Regulations under subsection (a)(1) [including the regulations governing discovery]…shall provide for discovery upon order of the Director [actually, it would presumably be upon order of the APJ handling the proceedings]," indicating that, in contrast to district court procedure, the burden of showing entitlement to discovery would be on the party seeking discovery, rather than imposing on that party's adversary the burden of showing why discovery should not be obtained.

Proposed 35 USC 326(b) in both bills would also require the Director to issue regulations providing "for filing under seal exempt from publication requirements" and providing for "protective orders governing the exchange and submission of confidential information"—both of which would be sharp departures from current interference practice. See Gholz, Compelled Testimony, Testimony Abroad, and Protective Orders in Interference Proceedings Under the New Rules, 67 JPTOS 239 (1985). However, 35 USC 326(b) then goes on to say that the Director's regulations "shall ensure that any information submitted by the patent owner in support of any amendment entered under section 329 is made available to the public as part of the prosecution history of the patent." Since the "confidential information" is more likely to be submitted by the patent owner than by its adversary, I wonder how often a protective order will actually issue. Or is the point that the protective order will automatically expire upon conclusion of the cancellation proceeding?

Both the House version and the Senate version of proposed 35 USC 334 govern the effect on cancellation proceedings of decisions in other proceedings (only an infringement action in the Senate version, but either an infringement action or an ITC action in the House version). Surprisingly, both versions seem to assume that the decisions of the courts (or the courts and the ITC), on the one hand, and the decisions of the Board, on the other hand, are of identical issues—despite that fact that the party attacking a patent has a lower burden of proof before the Board and therefore might win before the Board even though it would lose before a court or the ITC on identical evidence.

In sum, I'd like to express my hope that the drafters of the two bills will consult with experts on interference law and practice, both in the PTO and in the private bar, before passing either version of the bill.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 97

Bits and Bytes, ITC, Patent Legislation, USPTO News
  • Patent Reform: Senator Kyl Introduces the alternative Patent Reform Act of 2009; This bill is more patent-holder friendly than the Leahy bill. The Leahy bill may see some action in Committee on March 26, 2009.
  • Patent Reform: Inequitable Conduct: Although a co-sponsor of the Leahy Act, Senator Hatch has suggested that the reforms should include reforms of inequitable conduct proceedings.
  • ITC: The res judicata effect of ITC Section 337 Decisions: Nil.
  • ITC Theory: John Marshall’s IP Law Journal has a nice set of articles focused on ITC patent Litigation
  • Personnel: Gov. Gary Locke is President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Commerce. Barring some unknown tax snafu or AIG relationship, is expected to be confirmed quickly. In his Senate testimony he mentioned the politically correct goal of reducing the PTO backlog along with creating a foundation for long-term economic growth; improving weather forecasting, and managing our fishing industry.
  • Personnel: The PTO needs three new members of its Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC). Current members include Kevin Rivette (Rembrandts in the Attic), Louis Foreman (CEO / Inventor), Scott Kieff (Conservative Law Professor), Damon Matteo (PARC innovation & licensing chief), Doug Patton (inventor & industrial designer at PattonDesign); David Westergard (IP guy at Micron – Looking to water-down patent rights), Marc Adler (former Chief of IP at Rohm & Haas), Steve Pinkos (former Deputy to Jon Dudas), and Maureen Toohey (Solo practitioner; former GC of a Dean Kamen’s DEKA company). I believe that Rivette, Patton, and Westergard will have reached the end of their terms this year and will be replaced.
  • The Economic Downturn: Diane Bartz has taken over writing all about patent law for Reuters. In a recent interview with John Doll, she uncovers that the PTO is projecting a 2% drop in applications in 2009. Others expect a 10% decline. The problem for the PTO is that their funding is entirely fee driven, and the agency had budgeted for a 5% increase. Along with most law firms, according to Doll, the PTO has “stopped hiring at this time.”

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 96

Bits and Bytes, USPTO News
  • Upcoming Event: ACI’s 3rd Annual Paragraph IV Disputes on April 27-28, 2009 in New York City (Downtown Marriott). http://www.americanconference.com/ParagraphIV.htm . This is a good event because it is well attended by both the innovators (brands) and the generics. On the wednesday following the class, several speakers will walk through a brand-generic settlement agreement and work on mechanisms to avoid FTC & antitrust problems.  
  • PCT Search Offices: The PTO is warning PCT applicants to make sure that the selected International Search Authority (ISA) is certified for your particular type of claims. One problem, the EPO is not ready to handle business method claims. [Notice]
  • Court Report: 2,875 patent lawsuits were terminated in the year ending Sept 30, 2008. Of those, only 3.8% (109) reached trial. Although 3.8% appears low, patent cases reach trial more often than many other claims brought in Federal Court. The same statistic for Copyright and Trademark cases shows 1.3% and 1.7% reaching trial respectively. During the past year, only six patent cases were filed in the Court of Federal Claims alleging infringement by the US Government. Read the Report.